autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, February 20, 2018, 10:45 (2255 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Whales are one minor issue in the consideration of the massive evidence for the existence of God. You make it a major inconsistency. It is a side issue.

dhw: Once again, as bolded above: the issue is NOT the existence of God, but your interpretation of his possible motives and methods. The major inconsistency lies in your insistence that every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extinct over the last 3.x thousand million years (e.g. whale evolution, the monarch butterfly’s life cycle and migration, the weaverbird’s nest) has been individually designed by your God, although his one and only purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens.

DAVID: You cannot deny the human brain is the pinnacle of evolutionary development, and every development in evolution either leads there or supports it through balance of nature.

If I were a dualist, I would say that in my opinion the human MIND is the most amazing product of evolution. Whether dualist or materialist I would and do flatly reject the idea that every development in evolution leads to it. In my opinion, there is no connection whatsoever between the vast majority of innovations (e.g. wings), lifestyles (e.g. the monarch butterfly’s life cycle and migration) natural wonders (e.g. the weaverbird’s nest) extant and extinct, and the development of Homo sapiens' brain. Since the balance of nature has constantly changed throughout the history of life, and there has always been and will always be some kind of balance of nature with or without humans, it is totally irrelevant to your anthropocentric interpretation of evolution.

Xxxxxxxx

We may as well include this post here:
Balance of Nature: Loss of species may bring extinction.

QUOTE: "New research shows that the loss of biodiversity can increase the risk of "extinction cascades", where an initial species loss leads to a domino effect of further extinctions.

Sorry, but I find this blindingly obvious.

DAVID’s comment: this is full support for my contention that maintaining balance of nature is of prime importance. I've presented all of this before but this is a forceful presentation of an extremely important concept.

If we wish to maintain the current balance of nature, then maintaining the current balance of nature is of prime importance. Otherwise we'll have a different balance of nature. Nothing controversial about that contention. By all means open a new thread on ecology, but please stop pretending that it has anything to do with – let alone supports - your anthropocentric interpretation of evolution.